Our Godless Constitution

[shanek]

You have not discussed it at all. You simply asked a rethorical counter question.

Wrong, liar. I pointed out that people tend to act differently in different contexts than what they say they would in a hypothetical scenario. This is a perfectly valid point and it is extremely dishonest of you to dismiss it as "rhetorical."

Does the Gallup data show that people trust atheists when it comes to political offices?

I don't think it shows that they wouldn't vote for an atheist in practice, if he were otherwise sufficiently consistent with what they're looking for in a candidate.

 

[Thanz]

Maybe, but I can't recall any time this has happened. It seems to me that the candidate's opponent only makes it an issue once the candidate himself does.

I was not alive at the time (and heck, I'm not even American) but I am under the impression that Kennedy's Catholicism was an issue - his opponents intimating that he would take orders from the Pope and this threatened US sovereignty.

Why can I be sure of that?

Look at your very next sentence.

And even if that is the case, how does that make religion any different than any other issue they would have used against him?

I never claimed that it would be any different than other issues. In fact, I think it would be used in a similar way to any other so-called "character" issues. If the republicans can portray someone who received medals in Vietnam as unfit to lead the military instead of a former coke addict who used his influence to get out of meaningful service, I don't doubt for a second that an athiest would be portrayed as one step below the devil in attack ads.

 

[Thanz]

I don't think it shows that they wouldn't vote for an atheist in practice, if he were otherwise sufficiently consistent with what they're looking for in a candidate.

Actually, I think that is precisely what it shows. People are asked if their party put forth an otherwise well qualified candidate who happened to be X, would you vote for him. X is substituted for various religions, as well as Black, Woman and Homosexual. For 1999, the only two groups not scoring in the 90s are athiests and homosexuals.

But I don't see how the fact that people are prejudiced against athiests in 1999 proves anything about the principles on which the country was founded.

 

[Kerberos]

I don't know. There are a lot of very religious Libertarians.

Perhaps, I opbviously wouldn't know, but does the Libertarian party have a lot of intolerant religious people? I would think that tolerance of people of different race/religion/sexual orientation was a fairly central Libertarian value, and thus those who would not vote for an atheist president wouldn't be Libertarians

Maybe, when faced with a candidate whose principles very closely match how you would want the nation to be govered, religion suddenly becomes less of an issue than if some random pollster asks you a question centering on religion as a core issue?

Certainly an atheist could be elected if he was mainstream and the opposing candidate was surficiently horrible (in the eyes of the mainstream), but that's a no-brainer. The question isn't if the American public would vote for an atheist over Osama Bin Laden, the question is if an atheist, but otherwise mainstream candidate would have a chance against another, non-atheist mainstream candidate, and the answer is clearly no.

 

[punchdrunk]

Margrethe II of Denmark
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Margrethe II
Reign January 14, 1972 - Present
Consort Prince Henrik of Denmark
Royal House
Predecessor Frederick IX of Denmark
Heir Apparent Frederik, Crown Prince of Denmark
Date of Birth April 16, 1940
Date of Death Still living

Her Majesty Queen Margrethe II (Margrethe Alexandrine Þorhildur Ingrid), styled HM The Queen (born April 16, 1940), is the Queen regnant and head of state of Denmark.

She was born at Amalienborg Palace, Copenhagen, to Frederick IX and Princess Ingrid of Sweden. Queen Margrethe II's official motto is "God's help, the love of the people, Denmark's strength".

Clearly, this is damning evidence of Denmark's dirty little secret: a country run by the cloaked Religerati!!

 

[CFLarsen]

Wrong, liar. I pointed out that people tend to act differently in different contexts than what they say they would in a hypothetical scenario. This is a perfectly valid point and it is extremely dishonest of you to dismiss it as "rhetorical."

Very well: If you don't want to discuss it, then don't discuss it.

I don't think it shows that they wouldn't vote for an atheist in practice, if he were otherwise sufficiently consistent with what they're looking for in a candidate.

You have absolutely no basis for claiming that. It is pure speculation.

Now, please answer the question, this time without speculation:

Does the Gallup data show that people trust atheists when it comes to political offices?

 

[CFLarsen]

I was not alive at the time (and heck, I'm not even American) but I am under the impression that Kennedy's Catholicism was an issue - his opponents intimating that he would take orders from the Pope and this threatened US sovereignty.

I do believe you are right.

"It is an axiom that 'the Catholic issue' embroiled the 1960 campaign, but this book is the first to take us beyond folklore to scholarship. Scrupulously argued and widely researched, A Catholic in the White House? examines the varieties of anti-Catholic concerns and phobias in 1960 and their impact. It captures the flavor of that riveting campaign and shrewdly analyzes the role of Catholicism in national politics both before and since 1960."--Richard M. Fried, University of Illinois at Chicago

A Catholic in the White House? will be required reading for those who wish to understand the importance of 'the Catholic issue' in American presidential politics, from the candidacy of Al Smith in 1928 to that of John Kerry in 2004."--R. Scott Appleby, Professor of History, University of Notre Dame

"Thomas Carty's A Catholic in the White House? is the first comprehensive scholarly examination of the 'Catholic issue' in the 1960 election. Carty provides a rich historical context, then explores the role of evangelical and mainstream Protestants, political liberals, and Catholics as they confronted the Kennedy candidacy and campaign. His treatment of the campaign includes original in-depth examination of the vote in key states. This is an important, timely book which deserves attention from everyone interested in American politics."--David J. O'Brien, Loyola Professor of Roman Catholic Studies, College of the Holy Cross

Source

Kennedy did not make his religion an issue, others did.

And, of course, there's the case of "The Happy Warrior", Alfred E. Smith, who was crushed in the 1928 elections:

Finan argues persuasively that Roosevelt captured the Democratic nomination in 1932 by seeking the support of Smith's enemies, including the southern, anti-Catholic Democrats who had rejected Smith four years earlier.

Source

Smith did not make his religion an issue, others did.

Maybe, but I can't recall any time this has happened. It seems to me that the candidate's opponent only makes it an issue once the candidate himself does.

You are wrong.

 

[SezMe]

Another thread driven to irrelevance by CFLarson/Shanek sinking to "Liar, liar pants on fire"

 

[shanek]

I was not alive at the time (and heck, I'm not even American) but I am under the impression that Kennedy's Catholicism was an issue - his opponents intimating that he would take orders from the Pope and this threatened US sovereignty.

Perhaps; that was before my time. But Kerry was (and still is) a Catholic and I don't recall it ever coming up. It certainly wasn't a major issue.

I never claimed that it would be any different than other issues. In fact, I think it would be used in a similar way to any other so-called "character" issues.

That seems reasonable to me.

 

[shanek]

Actually, I think that is precisely what it shows. People are asked if their party put forth an otherwise well qualified candidate who happened to be X, would you vote for him. X is substituted for various religions, as well as Black, Woman and Homosexual. For 1999, the only two groups not scoring in the 90s are athiests and homosexuals.

But as I said, there's a difference between saying you'll do something in a hypothetical scenario and actually being faced with that decision.

But I don't see how the fact that people are prejudiced against athiests in 1999 proves anything about the principles on which the country was founded.

It doesn't. It's a typical Claussian diversion.

 

[shanek]

Perhaps, I opbviously wouldn't know, but does the Libertarian party have a lot of intolerant religious people?

No, in fact, we seem to be the most tolerant group that I know of. And we seem to have more than our share of atheists.

The question isn't if the American public would vote for an atheist over Osama Bin Laden, the question is if an atheist, but otherwise mainstream candidate would have a chance against another, non-atheist mainstream candidate, and the answer is clearly no.

I don't think the answer is so clear. But then, it's never been put to the test as far as I know. I know early on in our history non-Christians had no problems getting elected. Lincoln was a most vocal non-Christian, although I don't know if he was atheist or not. I don't think Grant was that religious, either. But this is a different time, and people today (unfortunately) have a completely different attitude of what government is and what religion's role in it should be.

 

[shanek]

Very well: If you don't want to discuss it, then don't discuss it.

I am discussing it. You aren't.

You have absolutely no basis for claiming that.

I think the conclusion is reasonable, for reasons already given.

[snip Claus repeating himself as if that means anything]

 

[CFLarsen]

No, in fact, we seem to be the most tolerant group that I know of.

One should always look at the realities behind such claims. The fact of the matter is, that the Presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party will jail people for doing their legal job, as well as for merely disagreeing with him.

You have not been terribly tolerant of other people here yourself, especially those who disagrees with you, or merely show you wrong.

And we seem to have more than our share of atheists.

Do you have any data for that claim?

I don't think the answer is so clear. But then, it's never been put to the test as far as I know. I know early on in our history non-Christians had no problems getting elected. Lincoln was a most vocal non-Christian, although I don't know if he was atheist or not. I don't think Grant was that religious, either. But this is a different time, and people today (unfortunately) have a completely different attitude of what government is and what religion's role in it should be.

Lincoln knew the Bible intimately, and could quote from it in extenso. He wasn't outspoken about his own religion, but frequently used religious themes and references in his speeches. Hardly a "most vocal non-Christian".

 

[CFLarsen]

I am discussing it. You aren't.

Ah, I see. Yet another shanek-decree. Gotcha.

I think the conclusion is reasonable, for reasons already given.

It is fundamentally unreasonable, because all you have given as "reasons" are your unfounded opinions. Your opinion is not fact.

[snip Claus repeating himself as if that means anything]

Does the Gallup data show that people trust atheists when it comes to political offices? Yes or no, please.

 

[shanek]

You are wrong.

Okay, fine, I was wrong. I did say "to my recollection," though. But if it really were such an issue, why did it only happen twice in the last century? That doesn't seem like too big a deal to me.

 

[CFLarsen]

Okay, fine, I was wrong. I did say "to my recollection," though. But if it really were such an issue, why did it only happen twice in the last century? That doesn't seem like too big a deal to me.

Who said any thing about it only happening twice in the last century?? Two examples should be enough to prove you wrong.

It is at the core of what we are talking about: How religion permeates the United States.

You want to talk about religion in the US on a more personal level? How atheists are considered lower-class citizens? You want to ask people here how they are treated in their everyday life, simply because they don't believe in God?

 

[shanek]

One should always look at the realities behind such claims. The fact of the matter is, that the Presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party will jail people for doing their legal job, as well as for merely disagreeing with him.

Claus, several people have pointed out why this evaluation of yours is incorrect. Stop lying.

You have not been terribly tolerant of other people here yourself, especially those who disagrees with you, or merely show you wrong.

Really? Earthborn, Valmorian, and Thanz haven't been complaining...

Do you have any data for that claim?

Just my own personal experience. But with the exception of the JREF, the Libertarians are the only group I'm in where I actually know several atheists.

Lincoln knew the Bible intimately, and could quote from it in extenso. He wasn't outspoken about his own religion, but frequently used religious themes and references in his speeches. Hardly a "most vocal non-Christian".

"My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them."
—Abraham Lincoln to Judge J. S. Wakefield

"What is to be, will be, and no prayers of ours can arrest the decree."
—Abraham Lincoln, quoted by Mary Todd Lincoln in William Herndon's Religion of Lincoln, quoted from Franklin Steiner, The Religious Beleifs of Our Presidents, p. 118

"The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession."
—Abraham Lincoln, quoted by Joseph Lewis in "Lincoln the Freethinker"

"Mr. Lincoln had no hope, and no faith, in the usual acceptation of those words."
—Mary Todd Lincoln, to Colonel Ward H. Lamon, as documented in his Life of Abraham Lincoln, p. 459

"No one of Lincoln's old acquaintances in this city ever heard of his conversion to Christianity by Dr. Smith or anyone else. It was never suggested nor thought of here until after his death...I never saw him read a second of time in Dr. Smith's book on Infidelity. He threw at down upon our table—spit upon it as it were—and never opened it to my knowledge."
—William Herndon, quoted in Franklin Steiner, The Religious Beleifs of Our Presidents, p. 124

 

[shanek]

Who said any thing about it only happening twice in the last century?? Two examples should be enough to prove you wrong.

Not to the extent that people are claiming the problem exists.

You want to talk about religion in the US on a more personal level?

No, I want to talk about your claim "that the US is invariably interconnected with a supernatural being." You, OTOH, keep wanting to change the subject rather than support your own assertion.

 

[CFLarsen]

Just my own personal experience. But with the exception of the JREF, the Libertarians are the only group I'm in where I actually know several atheists.

Again, we see an unfounded claim from you.

 

[CFLarsen]

Not to the extent that people are claiming the problem exists.

So, you still claim that atheists are considered worthy of a public office, despite that you have no evidence whatsoever, and that there is evidence that contradicts your claim.

No, I want to talk about your claim "that the US is invariably interconnected with a supernatural being." You, OTOH, keep wanting to change the subject rather than support your own assertion.

But we have already established that the claim is true. You can hardly go anywhere without being presented with God.

Why do you think there is so much about religion at TAM?